Foreign Digest: Bolivia; Lebanon; and the Global War on Terrorism

Bolivia: the conviction and sentencing of the former acting President who took power after a public uprising forced the increasingly authoritarian left-wing President from power. The deposed Bolivian leader had already served three terms, despite a constitutional limit of two terms and the rejection of a referendum to eliminate term limits, and then claimed re-election to a fourth term, which prompted the revolt. The acting President became chief executive under Bolivia’s constitution. But a subsequent election victory by the leftists led to her prosecution. The United States and the international community should demand she be freed and that the rule of law be upheld, instead of the law of political vendetta that undermines liberty. Lebanon: The Hezbollah members convicted of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in 2005 in a massive bombing were sentenced to life imprisonment. Hezbollah is a Shi’ite terrorist organization backed by Islamist Iran and its ally, Syria, which often dominates Lebanon’s politics. It has a political wing that recently lost power. The conviction of the Hezbollah assassins is a major political turning point for Lebanon away from dominance by Syria and Iran. Hezbollah had tried for years to stop any inquiry into its complicity and to undermine the independence of the judiciary. Thus, the sentence is not only about justice and ending political violence, but about Lebanese independence. The Global War on Terrorism: France and the United States both captured major Islamist terrorists, in Mali and Syria, respectively. France has been assisting Mali against al-Qaeda, the organization responsible for the September 11, 2001 Attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. that killed a record number of people, but will be withdrawing soon from its former colony because the junta that took over in a coup is turning elsewhere for assistance. The U.S. has been targeting various terrorists in Syria, in this case a leader of the Islamic State, which is an offshoot of al-Qaeda.

The Middle Ages: Not the “Dark Ages” but Literally the “Age of Brightness”

The Middle Ages are often referred to generally as the “Dark Ages,” but there is a critical historical distinction between the entire Medieval period and the particular Dark Ages, the lack of which has skewed popular understanding of the medieval period. The naming of a later period in Western European history as the “Enlightenment” has probably contributed to the misperception of the Middle Ages as a relatively dark period. The Medieval Millenium:The Middle Ages were the period in Western European history lasting around a thousand years from approximately the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West (476 A.D.) to the Discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus (1492). The term “Dark Ages” is a relative one for any low point of a civilization, but in Western history refers only to the early medieval period after the fall of the Western Roman Empire to approximately the late Eighth Century, the time of Charles the Great (Charlemagne), the Frankish King who united much of continental Western Europe politically. Charlemagne’s accomplishment and the flowering of culture associated with his reign was one of the origins of Western European Civilization, along with the work of St. Benedict in the Sixth Century, an Italian who established Western monasticism according to a reasonable rule and conserved Europe’s Greco-Roman heritage through the collecting and copying of manuscripts. Problems and Flourishing: Despite the challenges of invasions, wars, plagues and highwaymen, the Middle Ages were nevertheless a period of flourishing in arts, education, sciences, government and law, with a number of local and general renaissances within the era. Among other Medieval accomplishments, the Middle Ages left the following major legacies: fairs; universities, the inventions of cams, clocks and eyeglasses; geographic discoveries; the development of modern science; parliament and common law. Illuminated Manuscripts and Gothic Style: Indeed, it can be argued that the Middle Ages, particularly after the Dark Ages, were not only figuratively, but literally a period of brightness. “Illuminated” manuscripts, the brightly colored intricate designs in books and other publications, were among the artistic innovations of the era. Even greater illumination came from a new kind of architecture. The engineering advancement behind the soaring Gothic-style architecture, which emphasized verticality as a way of pointing to God, allowed masonry walls to be opened up and replaced with glass. The increased fenestration let more light into interior spaces, even if the glass were stained with colors. Thus, this characteristic medieval style literally brightened up interiors that had been relatively dark before. A Brighter Perception: The modern perception of the Middle Ages is often skewed by religious or political bias, but a greater appreciation for it would be more accurate and lead to better understanding of Western European Civilization. In fact, many of the ideas of the Enlightenment, which is falsely portrayed as a complete break from the “Dark Ages,” that are conflated with the entire Middle Ages, had medieval origins, and the American Founders, who are often said to have been influenced heavily by the Enlightenment, were usually educated in the medieval style, which included study of Greek and Latin authors, by whom they were inspired. Figuratively and literally, the middle and later Middle Ages especially, contrary to modern misconception, were in many ways a relatively bright period that continues to shine.

Follow-Up on the Inflation Spike: Too Much Credit or Blame for Economic Policy

In popular opinion in America, there is always too much credit or blame of the incumbent President of the United States for all economic matters, which ignores the role of other parts of the federal government, namely the Congress and the Federal Reserve, (the central bank with the main authority to guarantee the stability of the currency). The Trumpified Republican Party and some Trumpist conservatives are blaming inflation on President Joe Biden and the Democrats, despite the bipartisan and external causes that I enumerated in my three-post series on the current increase of inflation (price increases) earlier this month. I also note the reasonable debate over whether the Trump-appointed Federal Reserve Chairman was late in cutting interest rates to slow economic growth and thus the current spike of inflation, but generally the focus is always on the President. There is also too much credit or blame for the federal government particularly, which ignores the role of the 50 States and of international governments, and for government in general, which ignores the role of other internal or external causes, like natural disasters, labor troubles, innovations, etc. Crediting or blaming the incumbent president for temporary economic conditions is also foolish politics, as conditions can change within months. The Federal Reserve will tame inflation relatively within several months and then the party in power will have been set up unintentionally by its opponents who blame it for inflation to claim the credit, whether it deserves it or not. But the Fed’s monetary policy will be a solution that reduces economic growth, which the opposition party will then complain about. What goes around comes around in such politics. Liberals and Democrats blamed George W. Bush in 2005 for the spike in oil prices that were a side-effect of greater world economic growth, which increased demand, even as the American economy prospered and now they are receiving similar criticism. It would be both better policy and better politics if politicians across the political spectrum educated voters better on economics, fiscal and monetary policy.

Blog Notes, Mid-2022

Less than half-way through this year, I have already posted more times than last year, when a computer glitch precluded my from posting from the early autumn of 2020 until summer of 2021. I note the technical glitch that continues to preclude me from identing or from line-spacing. I also recently posted for the 1,250th time since I launched my blog in November 2008 for liberty, representative government and good language amidst these trying times. Thank you for continuing to visit my blog, especially those who visit regularly.

Foreign Digest: NATO, Summit of the Americas, Iran, Venezuela and China

NATO: The applications of Finland and Sweden to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have been blocked by Turkey over alleged support for Kurdish rebels. NATO requires consensus for decision-making. The Turkish objection does not matter for the Nordic countries’ security, however, because NATO has extended its security protection while their membership applications are pending. Finland and Sweden applied because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Summit of the Americas: The United States is excluding three dictatorships: Communist Cuba, Marxist Nicaragua and Socialist Venezuela from the Summit of the Americas. Some other leftist States will decline to attend, as a result, while others support the decision. Most States in the Americas are expected to attend. It would not be a foreign policy failure if there would not be complete attendance, as it is morally and politically right to exclude authoritarian regimes and to engage only with free States, as it provides an incentive for liberty and representative government to participate in international organizations and provides legitimacy that tyrannies lack. Iran, Venezuela, China: There have been demonstrations in Islamist Iran, Socialist Venezuela and Communist China against the tyrannical governments. Iranian protests against cost of living and government incompetence broadened to protests against the Islamist tyranny. Venezuelan supporters of the liberal democratic opposition leader, who claims the presidency under a constitutional provision, clashed with the dictatorial regime supporters. Commemorations in the Chinese territory of Hong Kong of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre of thousands of peaceful protesters have been suppressed by the pro-Peking territorial government. Communist China has broken its promise to maintain Hong Kong’s autonomy and liberty that it made when the city-state reverted from British rule in 1997. In all three States where there have been demonstrations, the regimes have continued not to tolerate the freedom to assemble peacefully.

Foreign Digest: Afghanistan and Nicaragua

Afghanistan: A United Nations study found, as I have been posting, that the Taliban regime that took over Afghanistan last year after an American-led international force supporting the Afghan government withdrew, is intertwined with and backed by Islamist terrorists, and is failing to live up to its assurances about not being as repressive as when it ruled before and of forming a more inclusive government. The Taliban ruled most of Afghanistan from 1997 to 2002, when they were overthrown by the United States, its international and Afghan allies after the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., the deadliest in history, committed by the al-Qaeda Islamist terrorists whom the Taliban harbored and who has been supporting the Taliban. The U.N. report raised the concern about Afghanistan becoming a source of terrorism again if al-Qaeda and its offshoot, the Islamic State, become more capable of launching attacks beyond the Afghan-Pakistani theater. The Taliban have not received diplomatic recognition from any foreign State. Also as I have posted, the repot also found that there is a growing guerilla opposition made up of former Afghan military and security personnel and representing ethnic minorities excluded by the Taliban. Nicaragua: The Marxist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua, which has become increasingly authoritarian, has reportedly been eliminating hundreds of civil organizations, including both those that are political or associated with opponents of the regime, but also those that are non-political, in an attempt to destroy Nicaraguan civil society and establish totalitarianism, whereby the only institution of any significance would be the State. The Sandinista regime was reelected last year after arresting all opposition candidates. They had seized power in a revolution in 1979 and received backing by the Soviet Union during the Cold War until U.S.-backed rebels forced free elections in 1990, in which the Sandinistas were defeated and gave up power until being elected again nine years ago by promising not to take away the freedoms of Nicaraguans, a promise they have been breaking.

Part III of III on Inflation: Conservative Solutions

In my last post in this three-post series, I enumerated the causes of the current high inflation, which is an increase in prices, and analyze the populist proposals by liberal Democrats and Trumpist Republicans that would be ineffective and often counterproductive. In this post, I offer conservative solutions to inflation that would be more effective. In staying true to conservative principles of avoiding doing something when doing nothing would be the better option, I also summarize what non-conservative proposals not to try. Patience with Monetary Policy: Let the Federal Reserve handle the matter. The “Fed” is the central bank of the United States and is charged with creating a stable value of the currency through its control of the supply of money and through the interest rates it charges private banks. It was created in order to be independent of politics in order to make decisions that are only in the economic interest of the U.S. Politicians and the public should be patient for the results of the Fed’s policy of increased interest rates, which will take months to be fully effective. Avoid Increased Spending or Tax Cuts as an Anti-Inflation Policy: Do not spend more, as liberals propose, or cut taxes, as some Trumpists propose, just for the sake of trying to reduce inflation, as both proposals would be inflationary by increasing demand as people would be able to spend more, and thus increase the pressure on prices, as it would increase demand relative to supply. Although such measures are tempting to politicians because they would make increased prices more affordable, they should resist the temptation to try to reduce prices through fiscal policy (i.e. government taxation and spending) because the effect would be only brief and then soon become counterproductive. Avoid Raising the Minimum Wage: Do not raise the federal or state minimum wage, as liberals propose, as it would exacerbate the wage-price spiral and have the same effect as increasing spending, for the same reason, whether or not coupled with increased spending by compensated employers. Cut Tariffs: Reduce or eliminate tariffs that are based on protectionism, which is a policy of taxation that both some liberals and Trumpists support. Because tariffs are excise taxes on imports, the costs of the tax are passed along by importers to consumers as prices increases, reducing them which would decrease prices on imported goods in order to make them more competitive with domestically produced goods. Thus, reducing or eliminating tariffs would accomplish the goal of reducing prices without creating the long-term inflationary effect that other tax cuts would because lower tariffs would effectively reduce the prices of only imported goods while not changing the prices of domestic goods. Border Control Reform: Enact comprehensive reform of border control policy that balances security with economic need, which is a proposal that Trumpists and some liberals oppose. Further restrictions on migrants, such as migrant workers or immigrants seeking lower-paying jobs Americans prefer not to do, as nativist Trumpists especially propose, would only exacerbate the labor shortage, of which the current restrictions contribute, because labor shortages decrease supply and thus causes inflation when supply cannot meet demand. Increasing the number of migrant workers who are permitted to work in America would decrease the labor shortage and, because they tend to work lower-paying jobs, help mitigate the inflationary wage-price spiral. Balanced Energy Policy: Import more oil or other fossil fuels from friendly foreign States that are not members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), increase domestic production of fossil fuel, and increase the use of efficient alternative energy. The United States should also continue to pressure OPEC, the cartel that influences the supply of oil by limiting production, which has increased oil prices and thus the costs of production and the prices of any goods that are shipped, to increase production of oil. The U.S. has successfully encouraged OPEC, to increase production, but the cartel has not increased it enough to meet the demand. Some of the proposals by liberals or Trumpists or even by conservatives on energy emphasize only longer-term solutions, while ignoring the shorter-term or emphasize only one particular cause of the increase in energy prices. Conservative policies are more reasonable, measured and balanced than the populist policies of either liberals and Trumpists, and would be much more effective.

Part II of III on Inflation: Conservative Analysis of the Proposals Offered by Liberals and Trumpists

In my last post, I explained what inflation is and how it affects the economy and examined the causes of its current increase. In this post, I analyze the proposals offered by liberals and Trumpists and explain why they would not work or would even exacerbate inflation or cause other economic problems. Proposed Solutions by Liberal Democrats: More Government Spending: As always, liberals propose more government spending, which would temporarily help people afford increased prices, but it would soon be more inflationary because it would decrease the value of the currency by adding to the surplus of money over goods and services that causes inflation. Increased Minimum Wage: Liberals propose to increase minimum wages, which would force businesses to increase prices, thus exacerbating the wage-price spiral, plus also have the same effect as more government spending because the employees would have more money to spend. The usual liberal proposal to compensate employers for increasing their labor costs would obviate price increases, but nevertheless be as inflationary as other government spending. Anti-Fossil Fuel Policy: They are also engaging in opportunistic and populist politics because of their opposition to fossil fuels, but fossil fuels alone are not the culprit of the current situation and an anti-fossil fuel policy would neither be a short-term solution, nor even a complete long-term solution. Imports must be shipped — using oil. Furthermore, the world economy affects the American economy through travel, trade, etc. Proposed Solutions by Trumpist Republicans: Similar to what liberal Democrats do when they are out of power, Trumpist Republicans have been exaggerating problems and blaming liberal Democratic President Joe Biden for everything bad, no matter how external causes or even how much Donald Trump’s policies contributed to them, while minimizing or ignoring anything positive. And they are offering similarly thoughtless solutions. Trumpism is a populist mix of protectionism, isolationism, nativism, authoritarianism, corruption, cruelty and falsehood. Tax Cuts: Trumpists are offering the usual conservative proposal to cut taxes, which although economically beneficial, would have a similar result to increased government spending for the same reasons: it would temporarily make prices more affordable, but then increase demand and thus prices. Energy “Independence”: And similar to liberals on energy policy, they are being opportunistic and populist. Their slogan of “energy independence” is phony, as it would include Canadian oil. There is nothing wrong with importing British or Norwegian oil, for example, or fossil fuels from other friendly foreign States. It is not necessary or efficient to produce everything domestically. Moreover, the culprit of the current situation is the production cuts from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, a cartel, which is aggravated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thus, eliminating imports would not even be a the only short-term solution, even if it were possible in the short-term, which it is not. Furthermore, as with the liberal proposal to reduce American reliance on fossil fuels, the potential benefit of so-called “energy independence” is exaggerated because it would not insulate Americans from the economic harms of increased oil prices. High Tariffs for Protectionism: Although not necessarily promoted as a solution for inflation, Trumpists call for increased tariffs, or at least oppose reducing or eliminating them, particularly on Communist China, as an economic remedy (i.e. not for security or human rights concerns). Tariffs, which are excise taxes on imports, necessarily increase prices. Donald Trump imposed many as part of a policy of protectionism (i.e. favoring domestically produced goods by raising the costs of imports). Biden lifted some, but not all, as some liberals are protectionist like Trumpists. Imposing more tariffs would increase inflation, while not reducing or eliminating them would be losing an opportunity to reduce the prices of some goods and thus reduce inflation. More Restrictions on Migrants: Trumpists are being populist and demagogic by advocating for increasing border enforcement, particularly more restrictions against migrant workers or immigrants looking for work, as this proposal would exacerbate the labor shortage, which is one of the causes of the current spike of inflation. In my next post, I offer conservative solutions to the current price spikes.

Part I of III on Inflation: Conservative Analysis of the Causes of the Current High Inflation

There are several causes of the current increased inflation, some of which are more significant contributors than others. Both liberal Democrats and Trumpist Republicans are engaging in opportunistic, populist politics by magnifying the blame on their opponents to promote their favored proposals. A conservative approach would be a more reasonable and effective solution. In this first post in a three-part series, I explain what inflation is and what effects it has economically and observe the causes of its current spike. In the second post, I examine the proposals offered by liberals and Trumpists and why they would not work or would even exacerbate the problem. In the third post, I offer conservative solutions. Inflation, which means increased prices for goods or services caused by more demand than supply, is generally economically harmful. It diminishes the value of people’s assets and income and is bad for lenders (including those who deposit money in banks) because they will be repaid by a principal that, although equal in absolute terms, becomes worth less in its real terms (its purchasing power). Inflation forces wages to be increased, which in turn increases inflationary pressures in a “wage-price” spiral. But like most everything else in economics, it has some opposite effects. Inflation is good for borrowers because it diminishes the value of their debt. Higher oil prices are particularly good for the American oil industry, which exports some of its product. Causes of Inflation: Recovery: Inflation first increased significantly last year as a side effect of the economic recovery from the Coronavirus 2019 Pandemic, as people have more money to spend, which increased demand relative to supply. Labor and supply shortages: Workers have not been returning to office work after the pandemic, creating a labor shortage. The labor shortage is exacerbated by less migration because of restrictive Trumpist policies and especially since the pandemic by migrant workers and immigrants. Business owners are complaining that they cannot find Americans to do the work that migrants had been doing. It causes supply shortages, which causes price increases and forces employers to raise wages to attract workers, which feeds the wage-price spiral. Supply shortages, caused also by the pandemic or other factors are also causing price increases. Increased government spending: The federal bipartisan Covid-19 relief stimulated more private spending. The federal infrastructure spending, which was also bipartisan, although not as much as the Covid relief, is also beginning to contribute to contribute to economic stimulus. Stimulating economic growth is inflationary, as it increases demand as people have more money to spend. Trumpists have been blaming the spending for inflation, but much of it was bipartisan and there would have not been the economic recovery otherwise. The spending is only partly contributory to inflation. Increased energy prices: A side-effect of recovery is an increase in energy prices, as there is increased demand for the production and shipping of goods and for more travel. But a major contribution to increased prices for oil, the main energy source, is the production cuts by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cartel to force higher oil prices. Higher oil prices, in turn, influence various economic sectors and the price of everything that is shipped. Energy price increases have been exacerbated by the Russian aggression against Ukraine because it creates uncertainty and because of the necessary embargo on Russian natural gas. Both liberals and Trumpists are opportunistically using higher energy prices to promote their policies and blame the other side for not supporting them, but the spike in energy prices is because of the current causes I have mentioned, which would have occurred regardless of the proposed policies. Increased tariffs: The increase in tariffs, which is an excise tax on imports, did not cause inflation to spike, but I mention it because it has increased prices for certain goods, as it forced importers to raise their prices, and contributed to the baseline of prices from which inflation increased and their reduction or elimination would have mitigated price increases overall. The most inflationary ones were imposed not for security or human rights concerns, but as part of Trumpist protectionist policies that deliberately raised taxes on imported goods to causes price increases to encourage the purchase of more expensive domestically produced goods. Consumers are then forced either to purchase the costlier domestic goods or the higher-priced imports, but either way pay more than they otherwise would, while foreign States retaliate by discouraging our exports by raising tariffs on them. President Joe Biden has reduced some of Trump’s tariffs, particularly on the European Union, but not others. In my next post, I analyze the proposals offered by liberals and Trumpists for inflation and explain why each would not work or even increase inflation or cause other problems.